After more than ten years of no increases except mandatory costs and a couple of decision packages, we have exhausted options for increased efficiency currently available to us.  We are currently working with a budget that has a net present value 28% smaller than 10 years ago and a student population that is 29% larger.  We will need to be focusing on cuts this year.

Our recommendation for internally funding mandatory costs (Budget #1) shows that we would make up the $120,000 mandatory expenses by increasing revenue by $30,000 and cut expenses by $90,000.  The two largest cuts in expenses are a savings of $8,000 in insurance with a change to OSU being self insured and more than $16,000 in Student Media payroll savings by downgrading staff positions.  The rest of the cuts are in small amounts created by deferring maintenance or purchases.  The increases revenue come mainly from new lab fees being charged by Student Media, increase use of the Basement Bowling & Billiards and increased fees to the Cultural Centers for custodial services.

• BUILDING:  The MU Building does not generate its own velocity of traffic or use.  The facilities “respond” to velocity.  With a growing campus, we are busier throughout all parts of the day and evening hours.   Last year we saw an increase of 18% in toilet paper use and a 24% more paper towels used.  While some maintenance functions might be able to be stalled for a year, they would only return as larger problems the following year creating unevenness in our budgeting as line items inflate for a year, then deflate, followed by inflation the following year and so on.   Failure to maintain the structures and equipment for several years creates a larger problem of deferred maintenance.  You only need look at the hole that the State has dug with other facilities on campus to see that this is not an attractive strategy for a building that depends on people choosing to come here.  A dirty building in poor condition is never going to work as a magnet facility.  We have efficiency standards and cleanliness standards that are continually under scrutiny.  We have long ago moved to green cleaning supplies, energy efficient lighting, improved building controls for controlling heat/cooling, etc.  to reduce student fee impact.  We utilize the discounts of long-term and state contracts to make our purchasing of supplies as efficient as possible.
• PROGRAMS:  Similar to the building conditions, we are not significantly overfunded in any aspect of our programs.  In order to internally fund non-discretionary spending increases, all programming boards will be asked to produce fewer events.
• STUDENT STAFF: There will generally be no increases in student pay except for the required minimum wage increase.  So students currently at minimum wage will receive a 15 cent (about 1.2%) cost of living increase but other students will not.
• REVENUE:  We do have about $30K of new revenue coming on line next year, but that new revenue stream is meant to reduce the impact on Student Fees through the departure of the Bookstore.  If instead, it is used to help reduce the Student Fee for FY 14, then it is not available when the Bookstore lease impact hits student in FY 15.

Every index of the 23 separate units within the MU organization has been reviewed per line items by the MU Leadership Team to better understand the FY 12 ending 6/30/12.

• Several expense transaction codes often “roll up” into a single line on our budget.  To truly understand the expense history, in-depth reviews of individual transactions must occur.
• The unique happenings within the budget are often one-year anomalies, so it is best that we confirm status of a line item in our budget for several budget years, before choosing to make an adjustment based on a single year.  Some expenses occur every other year or every third year to reduce the cost to students.  On the years that the expense is incurred, it looks like an increase but a review of past budgets shows that it is a cyclical expense.
• We operate from indexes attached to units that differ greatly from one another.  The logic used to make decisions in program units with allocated budgets, likely doesn’t work in retail or service units, who have to spend money to make money.